D&D 5E (2014) FGG/Necromancer Games teases 5th Edition Foes
- Thread starter mach1.9pants
- Start date
Hmmmm, yeah, better hope he knows the rules
If he doesn't, you'd best not buy the Tyranny of Dragons adventures from WotC. He co-wrote those with Wolfgang Baur.
trentonjoe
Explorer
Just some thoughts I had:
1. I like to see the factors behind the AC. If it is 14, I want to know why? Dex? Armor? Something else?
2. I also like to see variations of the monsters. An addition to the description could be something like:
Not all Aaztar-ghola have the exact same spell like abilities. Feel free to swap any 1st, 2nd or 3rd level spell with any of the standard spells listed above.
or
Some Aaztar-ghola develop physical abilities instead of their innate spell casting. For every spell removed from the innate spell casting block choice one feat to augment the Aaztar-ghola.
3. The base Aaztar-ghola you have has essentially no equipment. As a creature that is going to be in the 2nd tied or play (4th-10th) for PC's, I would like to see a preferred treasure chart. Do they favor rings? Magical scimitars? Wonderous items? Scrolls? A sentence or two just describing their favorite treasures might make it easier for DM's to work them into a campaign.
4. A pronunciation guide would be nice for things with difficult names as well.
5. Unlike other's who have posted, I don't have a problem with the finger of death spell for these guys. I think it gives them a uniqueness. I would include a tactics paragraph for them though that describes when and why they use it. A neat quirk would be they become fatigued if they use it. That stops them from opening combat with the ability unless they have to.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Steve's good people. If he says these are things Necromancer's deliberately left out while they're calculated, as opposed to accidental omissions--and that the odd spell-casting is deliberate, if perhaps confusingly presented--that's enough to assuage most of my concerns.
zoroaster100
First Post
I'm also a backer who is getting cold feet because of this preview. I haven't pulled out yet, but need to see some good previews to get my confidence back, and an explanation of how they intend to fix the glaring design problems with this particular monster, to make sure I know they understand what is wrong with it. Giving no CR or XP, and low HD and hp, but a deadly seventh level spell seems to me to be plain bad design. If they aren't balancing the monsters for use for the appropriate CR, then the book is pretty useless to me. I can come up with my own conversions from older editions myself. What I need help with is balancing the abilities of the monster to the appropriate CR/level, and having the abilities and hp mesh well so it is a fun monster to use and not a glass cannon or has other silliness going on with its stats.
Steven Winter
Explorer
I do, and I like 'em -- a lot! I've found plenty of things to like in every edition, but I'm more excited for D&D now than I've been in a long time.
That does not, however, mean that I'm not willing to bend the rules in creative ways. Not ignore them or break them outright, but exceptions are where some of the most interesting things happen. That's what spells, feats, and many monsters are about -- allowing exceptions that make the situation more exciting.
Consider this, for example: 5E follows a formula for a monster's attack bonus. Let's say a monster hits all the right buttons to be CR 5. But then, just to be different, we up its attack bonus so it's hitting a lot more frequently than the formula allows, and raise its CR to 6 to compensate. In every other way it's a CR 5 monster, but it has the attack bonus of a much more dangerous creature. Or maybe its damage was boosted instead of its attack bonus -- or like the aaztor-ghola, it has a very dangerous, one-shot standout attack. How do you feel about monsters that deviate from the curve that way?
I think I feel a blog post coming on ...
Steve
That does not, however, mean that I'm not willing to bend the rules in creative ways. Not ignore them or break them outright, but exceptions are where some of the most interesting things happen. That's what spells, feats, and many monsters are about -- allowing exceptions that make the situation more exciting.
Consider this, for example: 5E follows a formula for a monster's attack bonus. Let's say a monster hits all the right buttons to be CR 5. But then, just to be different, we up its attack bonus so it's hitting a lot more frequently than the formula allows, and raise its CR to 6 to compensate. In every other way it's a CR 5 monster, but it has the attack bonus of a much more dangerous creature. Or maybe its damage was boosted instead of its attack bonus -- or like the aaztor-ghola, it has a very dangerous, one-shot standout attack. How do you feel about monsters that deviate from the curve that way?
I think I feel a blog post coming on ...
Steve
I personally prefer it. Creativity trumps formula in my mind, and 99% of fiction would be terribly inhibited if bad guys all followed a specific template. As long as the CR gives the DM a good idea of the basic encounter level, I'm cool. Get funky on it. Just make sure I can easily establish the danger level so I don't accidentally TPK. Heck, a paragraph of advice on that very subject for each critter would be amazing ("This critter is fairly weak, but it's X power is extremely powerful, though only useable once per day.")
*twitch* Depends entirely how much my OCD flares up. *twitch*
G'day, Steve! My general thought is that I'm fine with it.
However, I'd prefer that when there are exceptions made, they're either called out or (with regard to spells) formatted in a way that doesn't cause confusion.
In this particular case, the placement evokes the 5E slot usage whilst not actually using it. Placing the numbers *after* the spells would probably ease my worries. Thus,
* 1st Level: inflict wounds (x2) (range 50 ft.)
* 2nd Level: see invisibility (x1)
* 3rd Level: dispel magic (x1), fly (x1)
* 7th Level: finger of death (x1)
It makes it a lot clearer that the standard 5e spell-casting system isn't being used.
Cheers!
Samurai
Adventurer
I think it's fine within limits. If you up both the hitting and damage by several CRs without increasing anything else, you have glass cannons that die very easily if they lose initiative, or kill the whole party if they win initiative. Let's take an extreme example... a tribe of ordinary goblins, but each can cast Meteor Swarm 1/day. If the PCs win initiative, the goblins are dead, and the PCs likely have no idea why "ordinary goblins" were worth so much XP. If the goblins win initiative, it's a TPK, and it doesn't matter if they only had 8 HPs or so, because the party just got hit for 20d6+20d6 x number of goblins in damage.
So, I think we can all agree that meteor swarming goblins are unbalanced, so then the question is where do you draw the line? For me, I don't like 1-shotting a PC, where they go from fully healed to totally dead in 1 shot. That's a danger the first couple levels, but as DM I'll try to fudge things or use average damage to make sure a 1-shot doesn't happen. If you have given a CR-appropriate creature enough power to 1-shot a PC, it's crossed the line IMO. And on the flip side, the rest of its abilities mean it won't be much of a challenge for the rest of the party after 1 of them dies, which means it is very frighting on round 1 and not much of a threat at all after that.
My suggestion: Don't skip a spell level, get rid of FoD in exchange for a 4th level spell. I think Blight is a good choice, it is a single target necromantic spell like FoD that does more level-appropriate damage.
Last edited:
Are they unbalanced, or do they just encourage character research, scouting, planning, and strategy? I think they sound awesome. Clever players will reseach or scout, figure out that a full-frontal assault is too risky, and figure out some other angle. This makes me happy.
Similar Threads
